Internet Fragmentation: Perspectives & Collaboration | IGF 2023 WS #405

Elena Plexida

The internet is currently not fragmented at a technical level, thanks to the presence of unique identifiers such as domain names, IP addresses, and Internet protocols. These identifiers play a crucial role in keeping the internet connected and functioning smoothly. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an organization dedicated to ensuring the stable and secure operation of these identifiers. They work in cooperation with other organizations like Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to maintain the integrity of the internet.

However, concerns have been raised about the potential for internet fragmentation due to political decisions. It is feared that politicians could decide to create alternate namespaces or a second root of the internet, which would undermine its uniqueness and coherence. The increasing politicisation of the world is seen as a factor that could influence the unique identifiers of the internet. If political interests begin to shape the internet’s architecture, it could lead to fragmentation and potentially hinder global connectivity.

It is important to distinguish content limitations from internet fragmentation. Content limitations, such as parental controls or restrictions on certain types of content, are related to user experience rather than the actual fragmentation of the internet. Referring to content-level limitations as internet fragmentation can be misleading and potentially harmful. Such a misinterpretation could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of a truly fragmented internet.

The preservation of what is needed in the internet is considered crucial. Mentions of data localisation, islands of secluded content, and shutdowns are seen as threatening to internet freedom. These issues highlight the need to protect the openness and accessibility of the internet. Adverse effects can also occur at a technical level due to legislation aimed at addressing content issues. While the technical community acknowledges the necessity of legislation, it is important to ensure that unintended consequences do not disrupt the basic functioning of the internet.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards attempts to apply sovereignty over the internet. This raises concerns among those who advocate for a global and open internet. The application of sanctions over IP addresses is used as an example to illustrate the potential negative impact of applying sovereignty over something inherently global like the internet. Maintaining the global nature of the internet is seen as essential to foster innovation, enable collaboration, and promote peace and justice.

In conclusion, while the internet is currently not fragmented at a technical level, there are concerns about potential fragmentation caused by political decisions or misunderstandings about content limitations. The preservation of what is necessary in the internet and the resistance against the application of sovereignty over its inherently global nature are key issues to consider in order to maintain a stable, secure, and open internet for everyone.

Javier Pallero

The main purpose of the Internet is to connect people and facilitate global communication, as well as providing unrestricted access to information across borders. It serves as a platform that allows individuals worldwide to interact and exchange ideas, irrespective of their geographical location. This positive aspect of the Internet promotes connectivity and enables access to knowledge.

However, the perception of Internet fragmentation is not solely influenced by technical factors but also by policy decisions and business practices. These factors contribute to the fragmentation and create barriers to the free and open exchange of information. Government policies and business practices shape the functioning of the Internet, often resulting in restrictions and limitations on access.

While these factors are significant in understanding the overall landscape of Internet fragmentation, they may not fully define it from a technical perspective. It is important to consider different aspects of Internet governance, such as protocols and policy levels, which have their own areas of discussion and involve various stakeholders. However, there should be more attention and engagement specifically in the technical aspects of internet governance to mitigate the issues related to fragmentation and ensure a more cohesive and inclusive Internet experience.

One of the main threats to internet fragmentation is posed by governments. Governments sometimes seek to control the Internet and have the power to limit access or manipulate content. The multi-stakeholder model, which involves the participation of various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and civil society, can be an effective approach to counter these governmental threats. By revitalising this model and denouncing government advancements in controlling the internet, valuable contributions can be made towards maintaining an open and inclusive internet governance structure.

Furthermore, informing users and promoting their participation play a crucial role in putting pressure on governments to uphold internet freedom. When users are aware of their rights and the potential negative impacts of government control, they can actively voice their concerns and strive to protect their online freedoms. By empowering users with information and encouraging their active participation, the internet community can collectively work towards preserving an open and accessible internet.

In conclusion, while facilitating global communication and access to information remains the primary purpose of the Internet, the challenges of internet fragmentation must be addressed. This requires considering not only technical factors but also policy decisions and business practices. By focusing on the technical aspects of internet governance and reviving the multi-stakeholder model, as well as promoting user awareness and participation, progress can be made towards a more unified and inclusive internet structure.

Sheetal Kumar

During the discussions regarding the challenge of preserving the core values and principles of the internet while allowing for its adaptation and evolution, it was noted that both intended and unintended actions have affected internet properties and user autonomy. Government regulations and corporate decisions have played a significant role in shaping the internet landscape. The growth of internet shutdowns has particularly impacted the principle of connectivity, causing concerns about maintaining a free and open online environment.

Sheetal Kumar, a strong advocate for preserving and evolving the internet, emphasized the importance of compliance with the original vision and user experience. To address the issue of internet fragmentation, the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation was established. This network aims to navigate the future of the internet by developing a comprehensive framework that covers the technical layer, user experiences, and governance of the internet. One of the network’s key recommendations is the need for coordination and communication among non-inclusive bodies to tackle the challenges posed by internet fragmentation.

The speakers agreed that we are currently on the wrong path and moving away from the original concept of the internet. This disruption to the internet has raised concerns about its future, emphasizing the need for collective understanding and implementation of recommendations to improve the current state. Recommendations from the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the multi-stakeholder policy network have been put forward to address these concerns. Implementing these recommendations could not only ensure the preservation of the core values of the internet but also contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the challenge of preserving the fundamental principles of the internet while adapting to its evolving nature. It is crucial to address internet fragmentation and promote coordination and communication among non-inclusive bodies to ensure the internet remains a free and open space. By collectively implementing recommendations, we can work towards improving the current state and realizing the original vision and user experience of the internet.

Moderator – Avri Doria

Internet fragmentation is a contentious and intricate topic that invites diverse opinions and definitions. It is an important subject to understand, particularly with the fast-paced advancements in technology and the increasing interconnectedness of the world. However, experts and scholars continue to study this matter to gain a more comprehensive understanding of it.

Avri Doria, an advocate for open participation, brings attention to the significance of involving all individuals in the discussion on Internet fragmentation. Doria emphasizes that fostering dialogue and collaboration can lead to a better comprehension of this phenomenon. This inclusive approach aims to generate diverse perspectives and broaden the scope of analysis.

Internet fragmentation refers to the division or separation of the internet, resulting in distinct networks or restricted access in different regions or countries. Several factors contribute to this fragmentation, including government censorship, technological barriers, and varying policies and regulations across jurisdictions. The consequences of Internet fragmentation can range from limitations on freedom of expression and access to information to hindrances in international cooperation and economic development.

The ongoing study of Internet fragmentation signifies the collective efforts towards understanding its implications and finding solutions to mitigate its negative effects. Researchers and policymakers are exploring ways to address the challenges posed by fragmentation while preserving the open nature of the internet. This requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving government bodies, civil society organizations, and private sector entities.

In conclusion, Internet fragmentation remains a topic of great importance and interest due to its wide-ranging implications. The existence of divergent definitions and opinions highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for further research. Avri Doria’s emphasis on inclusive participation provides a valuable framework for fostering dialogue and collaboration, ultimately enhancing our understanding of Internet fragmentation. By working together, we can strive towards a more open and globally connected internet that benefits societies worldwide.

Umai

Discussions surrounding internet fragmentation have primarily focused on the technical layers of the internet. However, there has been a noticeable oversight of the social layer, which encompasses network engineers and their informal communities. This neglect is concerning because it fails to recognize the vital role that these individuals play in the maintenance and sustainability of internet networks.

The social layer of the internet is made up of network engineers who are responsible for the day-to-day operations and upkeep of the internet infrastructure. They work diligently to ensure the optimal functioning of networks, addressing issues, and implementing necessary updates and enhancements. Their efforts are often supported by informal communities where knowledge sharing and collaboration take place.

It is worth noting that discussions on internet fragmentation often overlook the social layer. This is particularly significant given the ageing community of network engineers, sparking concerns regarding the future capabilities of this workforce. As these engineers retire, it may become increasingly challenging to find skilled replacements with the expertise required to effectively maintain internet networks.

To address this issue, further research is required to explore the capabilities and potential of network engineer communities in maintaining internet networks. This research should not only focus on technical aspects but also consider broader factors such as industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Additionally, considering the role of education in nurturing skilled professionals, the research should emphasize the importance of quality education in fostering a new generation of network engineers.

In conclusion, discussions on internet fragmentation need to widen their scope to include the social layer, comprising network engineers and their informal communities. The ageing workforce of network engineers raises concerns about the future maintenance of internet networks, highlighting the need for further research in this area. By examining the capabilities of these communities and addressing the challenges posed by an ageing workforce, we can ensure a sustainable and resilient internet infrastructure for the future.

Dhruv Dhody

Internet fragmentation is an important issue that has attracted attention from experts and policymakers. The main concern is its impact on interoperability, which refers to the ability of different systems and devices to effectively communicate and work together. One argument suggests that not all forms of fragmentation pose the same threat, and therefore, a more nuanced approach should be taken to address the issue. It emphasizes the need to differentiate between various types of fragmentation before finding solutions.

While the negative consequences of fragmentation have been widely discussed, it is important to consider the positive aspects as well. Certain forms of fragmentation can enhance privacy, security, and local autonomy. Understanding this dual nature of fragmentation is vital for a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

However, there is an opposing viewpoint that argues against grouping together different forms of internet fragmentation. This perspective suggests that examining each form individually would provide a better understanding of their unique implications. Although supporting facts are not provided, this argument implies the importance of considering the specific characteristics of each type of fragmentation.

In conclusion, internet fragmentation is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. While interoperability is a major concern, it is crucial to recognize the varied nature and potential consequences of different forms of fragmentation. By taking a more nuanced and targeted approach, policymakers and stakeholders can effectively address this multifaceted challenge.

Michael Rothschild

During the early development of the internet in 1983, it was composed of separate fragments of networks in various countries. This meant that there was no cohesive internet as we know it today; instead, there were isolated segments of services and networks. To overcome this fragmentation, gateways were introduced to interconnect these fragments.

However, using gateways to connect the different networks had its drawbacks. It became clear that gateways could be inefficient, posing challenges to the smooth flow of information and communication. Additionally, there were concerns that gateways could potentially filter or restrict certain data or content.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the use of gateways carries implications for several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 16, which focuses on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, is relevant in this context. The inherent risks associated with filtering and potential restrictions through gateways could hinder the principles of justice, transparency, and freedom of expression.

Despite these challenges, there is optimism that technological advancements will provide solutions to address internet fragmentation. It is believed that future technical innovations will overcome the limitations of gateways, allowing for more efficient interconnections between networks and reducing the risks of filtering or restrictions.

In conclusion, the early stages of the internet consisted of fragmented networks that required gateways for interconnection. However, gateways proved to be inefficient and carried the risk of filtering. Nonetheless, there is hope that technical solutions will emerge to solve the problem of internet fragmentation and pave the way for a more interconnected and accessible internet.

Aha G. Embo

Internet fragmentation refers to any factors that impede the free flow of the internet and can occur at various levels, including technical, governmental and business. One of the concerns of legislators is avoiding ambiguous legislation that may hinder innovation. They strive not to stifle innovation with any kind of legislation.

Efforts are ongoing to streamline internet governance legislation globally. The objective is to develop a cohesive framework that ensures a safe, secure and integrated connectivity across different jurisdictions. Fragmentation is viewed as an impediment to this objective, as it disrupts the seamless flow of information and inhibits the integration of different parts of the internet.

On the other hand, internet shutdowns are seen as a form of internet disruption, where specific applications or services are intentionally halted. This practice is perceived as a roadblock to the free flow and integrated connectivity of the internet. It restricts access to information and inhibits communication and collaboration on a wider scale.

The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that maintaining an open, interconnected internet is crucial for enabling innovation and fostering global communication and collaboration. Fragmentation and internet disruptions pose threats to the free flow of information and the integration of the internet. Therefore, efforts are being made to address these challenges and establish a safe, secure and integrated internet connectivity worldwide.

It is worth noting that while the sentiment of the sources is generally neutral or negative towards internet fragmentation and shutdowns, there is a positive sentiment towards the importance of ensuring a safe, secure and integrated connectivity in the context of the internet. This highlights the need to find a balance between regulation and innovation to achieve the desired outcomes.

Nishigata Nobu

In his discussions on internet fragmentation, Nishigata Nobu acknowledges the challenges that this issue presents. He emphasises the problems that exist within the current internet system, particularly with regards to user interface type fragmentation, such as echo chambers and filter bubbles. These issues are detrimental to the online experience as they limit exposure to diverse opinions and information.

Furthermore, Nishigata highlights the importance of government intervention in addressing internet fragmentation. He reveals that the Japanese Government is actively following up on internet fragmentation issues, underscoring their recognition of the significance of this problem. Nishigata also points out that government intervention is often necessary to ensure public safety, economic development, and national security.

In advocating for government accountability, Nishigata stresses that governments should take responsibility for their actions in relation to internet usage. He insists that governments need to be held accountable for upholding open and free internet principles, which are essential for promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. Nishigata supports the Declaration of Future Internet, published by the U.S. government, as a means to guide and govern internet usage.

Additionally, Nishigata recognizes the limitations of government intervention alone in solving internet-related issues. He believes that collaboration between the government and technical experts is crucial in finding solutions. Nishigata advocates for partnerships and emphasises that the collaboration between the two parties will yield better outcomes than government intervention alone. He acknowledges that technical expertise is necessary to address complex internet challenges effectively.

To conclude, Nishigata Nobu’s discussions highlight the challenge of internet fragmentation and the problems within the current internet system. He acknowledges the efforts of the Japanese Government in addressing this issue, supports the Declaration of Future Internet, and advocates for government accountability in internet usage. Nishigata emphasises collaboration between the government and technical sector as a key approach in finding solutions to internet-related problems.

Jennifer Chung

Internet fragmentation can occur at different levels, including technical, user experience, and policy. This phenomenon has implications for the development and accessibility of the internet. At the technical level, fragmentation refers to the division of the internet into separate networks or platforms with limited interoperability. This can result from differences in protocols, standards, or infrastructure. User experience fragmentation, on the other hand, refers to the divergence in user interfaces, applications, and available content, leading to an uneven online experience.

One argument suggests that internationalized domain names (IDNs) may contribute to internet fragmentation. While IDNs allow users to utilize native scripts and characters, promoting inclusivity, there is a risk of fragmentation if their implementation is not effectively managed. Ensuring compatibility and consistency across different networks and platforms is crucial for the integration of IDNs.

Policy decisions also play a role in internet fragmentation. For example, government-imposed internet shutdowns or restrictions on access to certain websites or services can disrupt the interconnected nature of the internet, negatively impacting its functioning.

Mitigating the risks of internet fragmentation requires dialogue and coordination among stakeholders. Engaging in conversations and collaboration can help address the challenges. Furthermore, it is important to avoid silos in discussions by incorporating diverse perspectives and actors to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach.

In summary, internet fragmentation can occur at different levels, including technical, user experience, and policy. The implementation of internationalized domain names and policy decisions, such as internet shutdowns, can contribute to this phenomenon. To overcome these challenges, dialogue, coordination, and inclusive approaches are essential to ensure a connected and accessible internet for all.

Julius Endel

The analysis reveals a prevailing negative sentiment towards the current system of running the internet and providing data. Critics argue that while the costs for running the internet and providing data are socialised, the profits generated from these operations are largely privatised and benefit only a select few companies. This has raised concerns about the fairness and equity of the current system.

Furthermore, the privatisation and socialisation effect of the internet and data provision has led to a form of fragmentation. This fragmentation is seen as a consequence of the unequal distribution of profits among a handful of companies, which further exacerbates existing inequalities in the industry. The negative sentiment towards this system stems from the belief that the benefits and advantages of the internet and data provision should be accessible to a wider range of stakeholders, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few powerful entities.

Another issue highlighted in the analysis is the practice of data scraping. It is argued that companies are actively collecting and utilising user data to their advantage while reaping significant profits, while the public does the majority of the work in generating and providing this data. This raises questions about the fairness and ethics of such practices, as well as the need to address the disparities in profit distribution within the industry.

Overall, these issues are seen as contributing to inequalities in the industry and a lack of justice in the current system. The analysis suggests that efforts need to be made to address the socialisation of costs and the privatisation of profits, as well as reevaluate the practices of data scraping to promote a more equitable and fair system.

An interesting observation from the analysis is the connection between these issues and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). It suggests that the current system of running the internet and providing data is not aligned with these goals, and calls for a more inclusive approach that takes into account the wider societal impact and benefits.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights a negative sentiment towards the current system of running the internet and providing data, with concerns surrounding the socialisation of costs, privatisation of profits, fragmentation, and data scraping. It underscores the need for a more equitable and fair system, considering the wider societal impact and goals of reducing inequalities and promoting sustainable industry practices.

Robin Green

In a positive stance, Robin Green argues against the belief that content distribution networks (CDNs) contribute to internet fragmentation. She asserts that CDNs effectively connect people to services globally and ensure the resilience and fast access of internet services. Green’s argument is supported by the notion that CDNs play a crucial role in creating a robust and interconnected internet infrastructure.

On the other hand, Green defines internet fragmentation as a negative phenomenon that occurs when the user experience becomes segmented and prevents individuals from exercising their fundamental rights. This definition highlights the importance of a unified and inclusive internet experience, where all users can freely access and navigate digital content without facing barriers or restrictions.

Furthermore, Green addresses the regulatory implications associated with internet fragmentation. She identifies data localisation requirements, restrictions on cross-border data flows, encryption, content takedowns, and geoblocking as potential components of fragmentation. According to Green, these regulatory measures not only impinge on the user experience but also hinder peace, justice, and strong institutions, aligning with SDG 16.

Green’s observation is important as it emphasises the need to address both technical and user experience aspects of internet fragmentation. She suggests that regardless of the nature of the restrictions, be they technical or user experience-oriented, they should be examined and resolved to promote a more unified and inclusive internet.

In conclusion, Robin Green offers a positive stance on the role of content distribution networks and their impact on internet fragmentation. She argues that CDNs contribute to global connectivity and internet resilience. Additionally, Green highlights the negative effects of internet fragmentation on the user experience and the infringement of fundamental rights. She advocates for addressing regulatory measures associated with fragmentation to achieve a holistic solution. By considering both technical and user experience aspects of internet fragmentation, a more inclusive and connected online environment can be realised.

Jorge Cancios

A recent analysis explores the impact of geopolitical tensions on the unity of the internet. It reveals that, as global tensions intensify, the focus has shifted from digital interdependence to fragmentation. This shift is a response to the charged atmosphere of the current global landscape.

The analysis stresses the importance of trust and network effects in achieving internet interoperability. It explains that the internet consists of numerous networks that rely on trust to stay connected. However, increasing geopolitical pressures may undermine this trust and erode the network effects, potentially leading to fragmentation.

The analysis also highlights that the maintenance of internet unity depends on binary decisions made by various stakeholders, including individuals, networks, companies, and governments. These decisions can either promote unity or contribute to fragmentation. Therefore, the report underscores the significance of thoughtful decision-making at different levels to foster unity and prevent the erosion of the internet structure.

Overall, the analysis advocates for careful and well-considered decisions by all parties to promote internet unity and prevent fragmentation. It suggests that authorities should invest in the right direction to hold the internet together, rather than contributing to its erosion. By doing so, the internet can continue to serve as a platform for collaboration, innovation, and progress.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on the impact of geopolitical tensions on the unity of the internet. It highlights the shift from digital interdependence to fragmentation and emphasizes the importance of trust and network effects for internet interoperability. The report underscores the role of binary decisions made by stakeholders in either promoting unity or contributing to fragmentation. Ultimately, it calls for careful decision-making to preserve internet unity and prevent erosion.

Ponsley

The discussion centred around the concept of internet fragmentation, highlighting that it is not simply a technical issue, but also encompasses other factors. Speakers pointed out that internet fragmentation is not only related to technical disruptions, but also to human rights abuses, harmful internet use, and political aspects. This means that it goes beyond connectivity problems and involves potential violations of digital rights and freedoms online.

Additionally, it was argued that specific political situations can contribute to internet fragmentation. Ponsley provided examples of how internet services can be intentionally disrupted or shut down for political gain or to create unrest. This demonstrates the link between political motivations and the fragmentation of the internet. Manipulation of the political landscape using the internet by leaders can result in the shutdown of internet services and limited access to information.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the significance of internet fragmentation from both a technical and a human rights and political perspective. By exploring these different aspects, it is clear that internet fragmentation is a complex issue that requires attention and consideration. These issues raised during the discussion are particularly relevant to SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. The internet plays a crucial role in achieving these goals, and any form of fragmentation can hinder progress in these areas.

An important observation from the analysis is that internet fragmentation poses significant challenges to achieving an open and inclusive online environment. It underscores the need for robust policies and international collaboration to effectively address this issue. Additionally, the discussions draw attention to the impact of political instability on internet connectivity and availability, highlighting the importance of maintaining a stable political environment to ensure uninterrupted access to the internet.

In conclusion, the discussion on internet fragmentation emphasises its multidimensional nature, including human rights abuses, harmful internet use, and political considerations. Political situations can contribute to internet fragmentation, leading to disruptions and even shutdowns of internet services. These issues have implications for SDG 16, which aims to establish peace, justice, and strong institutions. Addressing internet fragmentation requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account technical, human rights, and political dimensions.

Raul Echeverria

In this analysis, the speakers delve into the complex issue of internet fragmentation and government interference. They highlight that, in some countries, there are disparities in access to certain applications, leading to a fragmented internet experience. This is considered problematic as the internet should ideally function uniformly across the globe.

Furthermore, laws passed in many countries have had negative impacts on the way the internet operates. These laws are seen as detrimental to the overall functionality and accessibility of the internet. The supporting evidence provided showcases specific examples of the negative consequences of such laws on the user experience. It includes the impact on certain applications and restrictions on online activities.

However, a different viewpoint emerges, arguing that the internet should operate uniformly worldwide, aligning with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. This positive stance emphasizes the importance of a consistent and accessible internet for all users, regardless of their geographical location.

On the other hand, there is a negative sentiment towards government interference in internet activities. The speakers express the belief that interference from governments in deciding what users can or cannot do on the internet should be minimized. This perspective suggests that users should have greater freedom and autonomy in their online activities. The negative sentiment is also supported by the observation that some policymakers prioritize political decisions or industry protection over the potential negative impact on the internet user experience.

Additionally, it is argued that measures taken by governments to restrict access to certain types of information should be proportional and reasonable. This stance aligns with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, highlighting the importance of policies that safeguard user rights and promote transparency.

Moreover, the analysis points out that new laws and public policies in democratic countries can significantly affect user experiences on the internet. The supporting facts emphasize that certain measures aimed at protecting intellectual property or as a result of taxation have adverse effects on users. Furthermore, the lack of understanding by policymakers regarding the potential negative impact of these policies is seen as a significant concern.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the consensus that governments, both democratic and otherwise, pose a threat to the consistent user experience due to implemented policies. The speakers argue that policymakers should prioritize the needs and rights of internet users, and policies should be informed by an understanding of the potential negative consequences on internet functionality and accessibility. It is evident that internet fragmentation and government interference are complex issues that require careful consideration to ensure that the internet remains a free and accessible platform for all users.

Tomoaki Watanabe

The debate surrounding the splintering of the internet, commonly known as the “splinternet,” has raised concerns about the potential impact of political or democratic motivations driving internet regulation. This issue is particularly relevant as even democratic countries face challenges such as terrorism and civil unrest which may necessitate some level of internet regulation. While it is crucial to find a balance between freedom and regulation, the argument emphasizes that the splinternet can be alarming when driven by political or democratic reasons.

The nature of the free and open internet is also a focal point of the discussion. On one hand, proponents highlight the achievements of an open internet, recognizing its capacity to facilitate global connectivity and promote the exchange of ideas and information. However, it is also acknowledged that the free and open internet can have negative consequences. It is important to reflect on these characteristics and consider potential drawbacks and implications.

Another argument put forth asserts that a unified internet has the potential to bring about social change. Advocates argue that a unified internet can empower individuals and communities to drive positive transformations in society. However, it is essential to note that even countries that support a unified internet and advocate for democracy face their own set of issues. To better comprehend the impact of a unified internet on social change, a more comprehensive investigation of these issues is required.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also benefits from a unified internet. AI systems, particularly large language models, heavily rely on a massive training dataset, made possible by the unified internet. This enables AI to continuously develop its capabilities and offer advanced services and solutions.

In the realm of communication, AI can provide advanced translation abilities and overcome challenges. This highlights the positive impact a unified internet can have on enhancing communication capabilities and bridging language barriers.

Interestingly, the debate suggests that while technical layer fragmentation is considered significant, the ability of governments to heavily regulate online communications may diminish the impact of such fragmentation. In other words, if governments possess the capability to regulate online communication extensively, the effects of technical layer fragmentation may be less significant.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the splintering of the internet, or the splinternet, raises concerns about how political or democratic motivations may drive internet regulation. The nature of the free and open internet is discussed, revealing both its achievements and potential negative consequences. Supporters argue for a unified internet, as it has the potential to bring about social change and benefit artificial intelligence. However, it is important to acknowledge that even countries supporting a unified internet and advocating for democracy face their own set of issues. Additionally, the impact of technical layer fragmentation may be mitigated by governments’ strong ability to regulate online communications.

Paul Wilson

The analysis provides valuable insights into the fragmentation of the internet and the significance of preserving its integrity. One aspect examined is the role of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) in the internet ecosystem. While CDNs facilitate access to specific services and content, it is important to note that they do not encompass the entire internet itself. This highlights the need to distinguish between accessing services and maintaining overall internet connectivity.

Another crucial point discussed is the lack of interoperability between similar services, such as instant messaging (IM) or social media platforms. The analysis reveals that there is generally a dearth of interoperability among these services, which can contribute to the fragmentation of the internet. To address this issue, it is suggested that service companies should be required to change their interoperability behavior. This would involve encouraging and enforcing interoperability between different services, ultimately enhancing the connectivity and usability of the internet as a whole.

Furthermore, the analysis underscores the importance of end-to-end internet connectivity. The COVID-19 crisis has served as a reminder of the necessity for seamless connectivity to ensure efficient remote communication and access to vital services. Point-to-point video communications during the pandemic have demonstrated the imperative need for maintaining the end-to-end model of the internet. The argument put forth by Paul Wilson promotes the preservation of the internet layer’s integrity, emphasizing that the end-to-end model is fundamental to the internet’s functioning.

One significant observation made in the analysis is the potential over-fragmentation of the internet if proactive measures are not taken. The quality of the internet varies, and it is crucial to undertake ongoing work to prevent excessive fragmentation. This highlights the importance of maintaining a balance between the diverse services and content offered on the internet and ensuring seamless connectivity and interoperability.

In conclusion, the analysis provides an in-depth understanding of the fragmentation of the internet and calls for concerted efforts to preserve its integrity. It emphasizes the distinct role of CDNs, the importance of interoperability between similar services, the need for end-to-end internet connectivity, and the significance of preventing over-fragmentation. By addressing these key issues, it is possible to maintain a high-quality and interconnected internet ecosystem that supports innovation and provides reliable access to services and information.

Tatiana Trapina

The analysis of the discussion on internet fragmentation reveals two main perspectives. The first perspective argues that the technical layer of the internet remains fully global and capable of providing connectivity, even in the face of censorship. This position is supported by the fact that TCP/IP, the system of unique identifiers, continues to dominate and has not been challenged by any alternative. Furthermore, technical tools, such as the compatibility between IPv6 and IPv4 IP addresses, have been developed to ensure global connectivity. The argument is that the internet’s technical layer is not fragmented and continues to function globally.

Contrarily, the second perspective raises concerns about the potential for real internet fragmentation due to government regulations and control. There is a belief that government restrictions, whether intentional or unintentional, could impact the technical layer of the internet. These restrictions may be motivated by political preservation or the protection of citizens. It is argued that such regulations could erode trust or disrupt the technical underpinnings of the internet, leading to fragmentation. The sentiment towards this argument is negative, suggesting that the looming danger of government regulations could pose a threat to the global connectivity of the internet.

It is worth noting that the discussion also touches upon the labeling of government censoring as fragmentation. Some argue that this labeling is inaccurate and that it should be more appropriately described as human rights abuses. The concern here is that by labeling it as fragmentation, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy and create further division. Therefore, caution is advised when using the term “fragmentation” to describe government censorship.

The proposed solution to preventing internet fragmentation lies in upholding global connectivity and trust. It is emphasized that the technical layer of the internet operates based on trust and the commitment to global connectivity. This is supported by the fact that the technical layer was adopted by a multi-stakeholder community. It is believed that if the foundations of trust and commitment to global connectivity are preserved, any problem that arises can be solved. The sentiment towards this solution is positive, suggesting that maintaining global connectivity and trust is essential for preventing internet fragmentation.

Another noteworthy observation is the importance placed on the preservation of what makes the internet unique and interoperable. This uniqueness includes technical identifiers, protocols, and other aspects that ensure the internet’s smooth operation across different platforms and devices. This preservation is seen as paramount to uphold the internet’s integrity and prevent fragmentation.

Additionally, the multi-stakeholder model of governance is highlighted as a key aspect of managing the technical layer of the internet. The sentiment towards this model is positive, as it recognizes the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes. It is argued that commitment to this model is crucial for preserving trust and effectively managing the technical layer of the internet.

Finally, there is a belief that feasible fragmentation may occur due to regulations specifically targeting the technical layer of the internet. The concern here is that the erosion of trust and the introduction of different governance frameworks could lead to a scenario where fragmentation becomes a reality. The sentiment towards this argument is neutral, suggesting a cautious acknowledgment of the potential risks associated with regulations that specifically target the technical layer.

In conclusion, the analysis of the discussion on internet fragmentation highlights two main perspectives. One viewpoint argues that the technical layer of the internet remains fully global and provides connectivity, while the other expresses concerns about government regulations potentially leading to fragmentation. The proposed solution emphasizes the importance of upholding global connectivity and trust, preserving the unique aspects of the internet, and committing to a multi-stakeholder governance model. To prevent internet fragmentation, the key lies in maintaining the global nature of the internet while addressing potential risks posed by government regulations and control.

Timea Suto

The Internet is not currently fragmented, but there are real dangers of it becoming so due to pressures at the technical and policy governance layers. Decisions made at political, content, and policy governance layers can affect the technical layer, potentially causing fragmentation. Concerns about the potential fragmentation of the Internet are driven by the crucial role of the digital economy, which relies on the free movement of data across borders. Barriers to these data flows present a form of Internet fragmentation. There is strong opposition to data localization and the fragmentation of the upper layers of the Internet. Data localization and fragmentation can hinder the benefits of the Internet, and concerns about trust leading to data localization are seen as risky. It is important to handle policy matters with care to prevent unintended consequences that could hinder the open and global nature of the Internet.

Dušan

Dušan expresses frustration over the misinterpretation and misuse of the term ‘fragmentation’ in the context of internet governance. He argues that this catch-all term encompasses a broad range of issues, such as filtering, balkanization, and IDN domain names. According to Dušan, the technical layer that connects everything on the internet is still protected, and governments have been granted the right to legislate within their respective jurisdictions.

In response to this, Dušan suggests that discussions on internet governance should focus on specific issues, like filtering and blocking, rather than relying on the vague concept of ‘fragmentation’. He believes that the current high-level discussions lack substance and cautions against engaging in them without a specific focus. He advocates for a more targeted approach, particularly emphasizing the need to explore filtering, blocking, and other similar specific topics in greater detail.

Overall, Dušan’s main argument revolves around the importance of addressing specific issues in internet governance, rather than using a general term like ‘fragmentation’ that can lead to ambiguity and insufficient understanding. By focusing on individual topics, he suggests that policymakers and stakeholders can engage in more meaningful and productive discussions on the subject.

It is noteworthy that Dušan’s stance aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, which aims to promote resilient and inclusive infrastructure development, increasing access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). By addressing specific issues within the realm of internet governance, it becomes possible to strengthen and enhance the overall infrastructure and accessibility of the internet, thereby contributing to the broader goals of sustainable development.

In conclusion, Dušan’s frustration stems from the misuse of the term ‘fragmentation’ in discussions on internet governance. He advocates for a shift towards addressing specific issues such as filtering and blocking to bring substance and clarity to these debates. By focusing on targeted topics, policymakers and stakeholders can work towards developing more effective and inclusive internet governance frameworks that align with the broader goals of sustainable development.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
the bottom of the hour, so I guess we should start. So welcome to this session on, what is the exact title? It’s on Internet Fragmentation, Perspectives and Collaboration. So that’s a good clue as to where we’re heading. It’s been an interesting topic to watch being talked about this week. Lots of opinions, lots of definitions. The beginnings of a new framework for how to understand it and discuss it, which is still growing and still being thought of. So there’s really a lot of really interesting people, knowledgeable people on this roundtable, and we really wanna get a discussion going of all the people around the table. And also, as we move on, all of you that are sitting back here. So anybody that’s gonna wanna talk is gonna have to come. There are only a few microphones, so you will have to come up and get a microphone when you wanna talk. But anyhow, so I want to welcome you all, and I really wanna get started. And as opposed to me saying a lot more, because you all have a lot more to say. So Elena Pleksiga from ICANN, would you like to start us off with a view?

Elena Plexida:
Okay. I’m on. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Avi. Yes, I can kick off with some more opinions and some more definitions, which I’m sure that you’ll be very happy to hear. So as you know, I work for ICANN, representing a technical organization. And therefore, if you will, what I will come here with. And in my personal experience, I believe if the Internet is to work the way that work the way that I would have hoped it to work, it’s wonderful. But if your goal is 100%, I don’t believe you can do it. It’s about doing everything to get your goal through to that one extent he is the challenge. And if the goal is 10%, let that be the challenge, but never let that be the challenge. So, what is it that binds it together to what we call today global Internet? And this is none other than the unique identifiers, the main names, the name space, the IP addresses, and the Internet protocols alongside. Okay, I’m not a technical person, so I think of it as some sort of common technical language that all devices speak and they can find each other on the network. So, what is the global Internet? It’s this uniqueness that gives us the global Internet. As long as different networks and devices connected on the same unique set of identifiers, we have one Internet. And that’s, of course, ICANN’s mission, one Internet to ensure a stable and secure operation of the Internet, unique identifiers, we do that together with our sibling organizations, the RIRs, the ITF, et cetera. So, what is the global Internet? It’s the Internet that’s created to do. But what is, what would be Internet fragmentation? At the content level, there are already limitations. Content is not available to everyone, everywhere. That’s been happening for years, and it’s even desirable in some cases. Think of parental controls. Of course, it’s not desirable in other cases. But that’s not Internet fragmentation. It’s not Internet fragmentation, it’s actually user experience fragmentation, if you will. But it’s not Internet fragmentation, and it’s actually confusing. And I think it’s also a good point. The internet is not just a thing that is a little bit inflammatory, it’s actually to my mind dangerous to keep referring to content level limitations as internet fragmentation. Because people leave a discussion with the impression that the internet is already fragmented. And that can become, if you will, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m talking of my own experience. I’ve been discussing with parliamentarians about internet fragmentation, and they say, well, the internet is already fragmented, so why would we, what is there? That’s why I’m saying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The internet is still there, it’s not broken. Fragmentation would be, if we take an example of the Postal Service, would be if the Postal Service stops being there. If I tell my postman that I don’t want to receive letters from Avri, that’s not internet fragmentation. I don’t want a specific part of the content. Fragmentation is when the internet breaks at a technical level, when you don’t have interoperability. So, is the internet fragmented today? No. A technical layer? Absolutely not. Can it be fragmented? Yes. I think it might. It might. Alternative namespaces. If we have that, the uniqueness is gone. A second root of the internet. The uniqueness is gone. I will not go into the technical side of it, because, first of all, I’m not technical. And second, and most importantly, because I think that, although fragmentation, fragmenting the internet is a technical issue, it will not come, if it comes, from the technical world. It will come from the political world. Deliberately or by accident, with the latter, the accident being what concerns me the most. The million dollar question, if you will, is will the global internet survive the fragmented world? So, you know, we live in a world that is not the same as it used to be before. There’s a lot of politicization around a number of issues. And we start to see this politicization over the unique identifiers as well. Them getting drawn into the geopolitical agenda. And that can be dangerous for the very global nature of the Internet. I’ll stop here. I hope.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Thank you, Elena. The next person I have is Jennifer Chung from DotAsia. To basically give her impressions, definitions, et cetera. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung:
Thank you, Avri. My name is Jennifer Chung. I work for DotAsia organization, which is obviously DotAsia is a registry operator of the DotAsia top level domain. I guess from my point of view, whether or not I can add to the definition or add to the controversy of this discussion that hopefully we’ll have here is DotAsia is a registry. We, of course, sit on the application layer of the technical part of the Internet. And I think perhaps we are quite clear on the fact that, you know, what technical fragmentation might be, you know, if we start with the baseline, you know, when we’re looking at where are we starting this assessment from? If the assumption that the primary benefits of the core features is to be able to have universal connectivity and to have the interoperability, I’m really bad with this word, between these consenting devices, then I think there’s that very baseline that we can agree upon. I don’t think a lot of people are really confused about it or would argue against this part. I think where we’re coming from now is I think many different definitions try to bucket fragmentation into different categories. I see a lot of papers and research and also opinions. saying that first, there’s a fragmentation of the technical layer, which hopefully is not controversial. Secondly, there’s a fragmentation of the user experience or more on the end user or how we experience, how we navigate. And thirdly, it’s a fragmentation mainly on the policy level, which is more governed by places in where decision making is made there or in governments where there’s decision making on policy regulations, legislations that could aim to destabilize or could fragments the internet as we see it. I think what is really important that we should also remember is what isn’t fragmentation. I think the word fragmentation is now used. It is very important to use this word, but if we use this word to describe every single thing that is different, I think it behooves us to actually pull back and realize no, this is actually something that is good for the development of the internet. One example I’d like to bring out from the .asia point of view is a lot of people see internationalized domain names as hey, this is, what’s going on here? Could there be a threat of fragmentation? Is this actually already a fragmentation? And I would like to pause it to say actually internationalized domain names, which means domain names that can be seen in scripts such as Urdu or the Han script, which is Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, also use the Han script. These scripts allow you to see the domain name in the native script, and the threat here really is if this is not implemented well, then we have the possibility or the danger of having a fragmented internet, not the fact that we are implementing this becomes a fragmentation of the internet. So that’s one thing I’d like to really bring up first. And the second thing is when we’re looking at a different part of fragmentation. When we’re looking at, and now I’m talking more about the policy level, when we’re looking at where we’re sitting right now at the Internet Governance Forum, we’re talking about these things. But when we’re looking at bodies that decide regulations, upcoming legislations, what we really have to remember is that when these actions and legislations aim at this content and user layer, and this causes Internet fragmentation, that it also threatens the technical layer because then the implementation then comes down, that effect, there’s a knock-on effect where things like Internet shutdowns come down from any kind of policy level, or things like when people ask certain bodies to shut down portions of the Internet. So those are the geopolitical concerns and pressures that we have to resist when we talk about fragmentation as well. And I think I want to end a little bit more with, at least for my first intervention, to mitigate these risks really requires a lot of, first of all, conversation and coordination, but also not duplicating all this conversation into different silos where nobody’s talking to each other and not quite getting the part where we need to coordinate well. So I’ll stop right here.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Okay, thank you. It was interesting to me to hear IDN included in the list of possible fragmentations. So thank you for bringing that up, and I’ll be interested to hear more about the whole notion of implementation being something that could cause that. The next person on the list is Timié Souto, ICC basis.

Timea Suto:
Thank you, Avery. Thanks, everyone. Yes, Timié Souto, Global Digital Policy Leader at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know us, we’re representatives of global industry. We have around 45 million members in over 170 countries across all different sizes and industries. What does fragmentation mean to me from this perspective and to us? And I have to react to what the others have said before because I think that’s the whole point of this conversation. On that baseline layer that Elena, you were talking about, is the Internet fragmented? No. No, it’s not. It’s working. But attempts have been made and were sort of successful to disconnect and prove that it can, it really can. And I think I need to agree with Jennifer, your last point there, that certain pressures that come, not at the technical layer, but at the top of all of that, at the content layer, at the data layer, at the policy layer, governance layer, have very real impacts on that technical layer and the Internet way, this network of networks. And I think disregarding that and saying the Internet works, it’s not fragmented, is putting our heads in the sand. Because there’s real dangers of the Internet fragmenting if we buy into the fact that we can fragment the top of it. Because it’s really easy for that to then go down. That is my maybe a bit controversial view, but I think we cannot disregard this. Especially when we are at forums like this and others that don’t have the technical expertise, maybe this forum has because it’s multi-stakeholder, but other forums that make decisions at the political layers, at the content layers, at the policy governance layers, might not have all that really technical background. So it’s easy, first of all, for them to confuse things. And secondly, thinking that if it can be done at the top. Why not do it elsewhere? What is there to lose? And I think those are very dangerous questions to ask. So for us on the business side, to bring it back to my official talking points. For us, what matters here is the digital economy that was built on top of the Internet and digital technologies and everything that the Internet enables. And when I talk about the digital economy, it’s not just about GDP or the bottom lines of business, but the society, the development goals, the growth, both personally, both for communities and for economies, that was fueled by the Internet. And that really depends for us on the ability to move data across borders, to make sure that data supports global trade, information exchange, commerce, health care, medicine, research, everything that is built on the top of data being able to flow across borders. And there are barriers to those data flows, for me, are real examples of Internet fragmentation. Maybe I don’t have a better word to call it, so we can put that challenge to the audience here if you have better ways to call it. But if barriers to data flows coming from various concerns, concerns mostly about trust on the Internet, whether it is I don’t trust my data to go outside my region because the privacy protections are not the same, or the IP protections are not the same, or the consumer protections are not the same, or just because I think I can create more value by keeping it here and not letting others share it, access it, process it, I think those are very dangerous thoughts and thoughts to data localization and fragmentation. this layer, I think, first of all, hamper a lot of the benefits of the Internet, even if it works technically, the benefits don’t come. And it’s not a user choice, right? It’s not Avri saying I don’t want to receive letters from you. I cannot receive letters from you because others have made that choice for me. And that’s also another question that we might want to delve into later. So I’ll leave it at that. And I hope I answered your question.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Yeah. You’re all starting to answer the question. And we’re also all starting to have a little bit of the discussion, though all these people talking about not sending me letters is going to get sad. But anyhow, next, I’d like to go to Javier Parlero, who’s a consultant, digital rights, tech and culture. So Javier is remote. So is he available to talk? Yes, please. Go.

Javier Pallero:
Oh, fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity for being there. I am connected from Argentina. So hi to everyone there. So let me go with my attempt at responding at this very difficult and specific question. What I would say is that I have to agree with all of that was said before. I think this is a very complex issue that starts with a very specific definition that is technical. Right. And listening to Jen, I have to agree. Right. About thinking about what makes the Internet one. Right. Which is this unique identifiers, protocols and the common language that is spoken. But one of the aspects that I would like to bring up from a civil society perspective is not only what makes the Internet unique or one, but also why that happens. What is the reason to be that the Internet has, at least for most of us as users? And that’s actually the ability for us to be able to communicate. and to connect with everyone, right? So that’s, I think, what is at the core of this confusion or this idea, right? That for example, politicians would say, oh, the internet is already fragmented, right? Because there is this perception that the reason that the internet has to be has been changing fast. It has become more closed, more seemingly or perceived, you know, in perception, it has become more disconnected, more unable to provide that sensation of connection and, you know, the ability to express yourself without borders and to access information and so on. So I would dare to go a bit further and say that it’s actually not a confusion, this idea that intertwines the political application, technical and protocol levels of the discussion. It’s not a confusion, it’s something that happens because the thing that goes across all of these dimensions is the reason of the internet to be, right? And the reason to be of the internet is for connection and for, you know, it’s technology that enables the enjoyment of rights and so on. So that apparent confusion is actually a part of the problem and also as the last speaker before me, Tamiya said, many of these situations, these decisions in the policy level or the application level as well, when a private company becomes a dominant actor in one area of internet services, for example, all of that ends up affecting somehow technical decisions, right? So for example, politics can mandate shutdowns or data retention or national gateways, right? But also certain companies, for example, can exert more and more influence into certain protocols, for example. A key example that comes to mind is. the DRM protocols that have been added to the W3C discussions about web protocols, for example, right? And many of that comes from private parties, not necessarily governments, right? Also, another example when it comes to government that goes beyond the extreme example of shutdowns could be the censorship attempts that are done through, you know, mandating changes to the DNS resolvers, right? Or putting pressure into DNS servers, right? So all of that is just a way of saying that this dimension, even if it is not part of the technical specific concrete definition of fragmentation, which I share is more of a technical specific discussion that maybe can be benefited, you know, by being correctly framed and limited. But all of these aspects that I’ve just been mentioning are also important. They may not be part of the definition, but they are part of the problem. And then a part of the perception that has to do with the idea that we have about the internet and how we think that we want to use it. I think that when it comes to working on this, we will have to make a big effort to make a distinction about these different dimensions, maybe focus on some of them, like the protocols one, but, you know, because the other ones tend to have their own areas of discussion, right? The ones about censorship of applications or the ones about bad policies, right? All of those are properly covered, let’s say by some other actors that have activity, discussion, regulation, civil society actors that are actually very active on that. But on these other areas, there’s not that much engagement. And maybe that’s where a more narrow definition of the issue can be of service, right? Just to inspire more attention to the underrepresented dimension, if you may. But the fact is that everything is important and should be considered. So I would stop there for the initial intervention. And thank you again for the invitation and for the opportunity to be there virtually. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you, Javier. And thank you for saying it was virtual when I said remote. That was an old-fashioned word that we’re not really supposed to use anymore, so the virtually or the online. So I really appreciate the correction. The next person I’d like to go to in this initial set of discussions is Nishigata-san for a Japanese government to give us a, where’s the microphone to go? Okay, it was going to go there. So please, thank you now that you have a microphone, please.

Nishigata Nobu:
Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is, thank you for the kind introduction. My name is Nobu Nishigata from the Japanese government. I’m working at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications who host this IGF event. So thank you for coming. And we do appreciate everybody’s participation and contribution which made this event good, really good. Thank you very much again. So getting back to the point of the internet fragmentation, since I’m the government official and I’m not a tech person either, I can write the registration though, not the quote. But, you know, it’s confusing matter to me, right? So just some people already mentioned, it’s many, many different definition. Then there’s a nature of the government person. We need a definition before starting talk, right? But I tried my best today. And then maybe, you know, this is a part of my job to just following what is happening in the internet every day. Then I do recognize some or maybe most of the recent issues is just following up on the category of the internet fragmentation. And then, you know, I refrain to speak that particular names of countries, but I do recognize that there is some frustration in the tech community, particularly, you know, among the several kinds of the fragmentation. And from the government perspective, then I would understand. frustration, particularly against the government intervention and its forceful type of fragmentation, for example, like internet shutdown during the election period, that kind of thing. However, from the government perspective, this is not a job of our ministry, but some other part of the government. We have to do some jobs, particularly for our public safety perspective, particularly within the border, you know, that the government has to solve. You know, internet is global, this is great, but on the other hand, the border matters to the government, you know. So then, not only for the public safety, but the government may make some actions that frustrates you guys in the tech community, and for the sake of the other high-level policy agenda for like economic development or national safety, et cetera, et cetera. So this could be maybe today’s one of the discussion points, how far the government can do or allow to do these jobs, and I understand that some communities hate even the single government intervention to the internet, however, but we do understand that we have to be accountable for these actions, and in Japan’s case, fortunately, we don’t see the severe cases yet, and of course, the government of Japan respect the open and free internet. You can see many evidence, like we support the declaration of the future internet published by the US government, or like Japan chairs this G7 meetings this year, and the G7 agreed the support to DFI, and it’s our chair’s leadership, and Japan and the US both government get together and then just finished our day zero session on the declaration of the future internet to the evangelized people in the IGF venue here. So I understand that some of the government action in general may frustrate the internet people, but on the other hand, it is not only the internet people that get frustrated, the government also sometimes gets frustrated, or I would say at least not satisfied with the current internet, and there are some issues that do be solved. For example, there are issues, I would say, regarding the fragmentation, maybe that goes upon a user interface type of fragmentation, like the filter bubble, or echo chamber, or these kind of things. And this is not only the phenomenon, but these things bring more some bad side effects brought by these internet services, right? So this is the issue that we are not satisfied and we have to tackle, but on the other hand, the government cannot solve these things by ourselves. We need particular technicians and technical people, and maybe other part of the society, but we need some other help to tackle and solve these problems. And in the intervention, maybe let me say that we had our Prime Minister Kishida came into the IJF meeting, if you are aware of, and he just committed to our effort to maintain open free internet, and particularly the reason is that we shouldn’t leave anyone behind from the benefit of the internet that brought for like 30, 40 years. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. It’s been an interesting first set of comments in that it started very low with a very precise, we’ve added nuances as we’ve sort of moved up the scale, and then it’s almost flowered to the point of anything that interferes with an open and free internet can perhaps be seen as a fragmentation. And so that is a very good representation. of sort of the blossoming of this conversation, the blossoming of the differences that many of us have. I’d like to now go and call on some other folks. We’ve got really an amazing number of folks around this table that have probably good things to say, and dig a little deeper. Perhaps there’ll be other nuances and other extensions that’ll get added, but also to dig a little deeper into some of what’s been said. And next, I’d like to go to Aha G. Embo, who’s a member of parliament of the Gambia. So you, okay, you got that one, okay.

Aha G. Embo:
Thank you very much for the introduction. I’m Honorable Aha G. Embo from the Gambia, member of parliament, and also the vice chair of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I think we are discussing a very important topic, a topic that is actually confusing some people because of definition, but I quite agree that anything that can actually interface with the free flow of the internet, actually you can actually call it internet fragmentation. I’m a lawmaker, but I came from the tech community, so we will be okay with that. Now, as we try to have a stable and integrated internet, this fragmentation, whether it’s at the technical level, or whether it’s at the government level, or whether it’s at the business level, because these are the three areas that you can actually see the fragmentation may happen. So we may have an issue at the level of legislation because legislators don’t want to legislate anything that’s ambiguous. We want to be very clear on what we are trying to legislate. And again, the internet is such a way that you don’t want to put in any kind of legislation that would actually hamper or stifle innovation. And again, when you have these fragments of the internet, like these little islands that actually are not talking to each other regularly or optimally, then we may have an issue. The cost is, you know, it could be political by our own governments, but at the side of legislation I think there could be an issue here, because we are trying to have a free flow and we are also trying to streamline our legislations across the world. That’s the reason why here you see that we have African parliamentarians, we have some from the European Parliament, and we’ve been talking, what can we do together to ensure that we have a safe, secure and integrated Internet. So bringing these splinter groups would cause us actually more problems, because we already have issues in terms of legislation, now bringing actually more divisions on this area is actually going to cause us more problems. So I think this is something we really need to discuss to see what we can do together to ensure that we leave it the way it is and then to ensure that we promote a more secure and integrated connectivity. In that case we can work together as legislators or as policy makers to ensure that we can streamline what we do. Now you just mentioned sometimes about the Internet shutdown, but personally I will actually call it Internet disruption, because what is happening right now is they are trying to stop particular applications from running, not the entire Internet. So that is actually disruption. So you’re not really shutting down the Internet completely, but you are just actually stopping particular applications from actually running, and I think all those things actually is something that we really need to look at to see that this disruption of the Internet actually stops, and this fragmentation actually would actually propel that more than actually just. So the side of legislation I think it’s better we leave it the way it is and support it more to ensure that we have free flow and we also have integrated and we also have it more secure for everybody to live. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
sort of the different behaviors and the different problems. And that perhaps is helpful. Next I’d like to go to Tomoaki Watanabe, who’s from the Center for Global Communications in Tokyo. And by the way, thank you everybody for helping play the game with pass the microphone. So please.

Tomoaki Watanabe:
Thank you. My name is Tomoaki Watanabe. I’m an academic based in Tokyo. So the way I thought about this issue is when is splinternet bad or bad enough? And I kind of agree, or I kind of resonate with the idea that the democratic or politically motivated splinternet is the one we should get most concerned about. But then maybe we should be aware of the fact that democracy, even in some of the most democratic countries, is these days a challenge to an extent or another. I think things like war against terrorism or measures against rioting or civil unrest, those things are not that foreign to some of the most democratic countries. And I’m sure that some level of internet regulation is desired by governments of those countries. So I don’t, and also let me add. One more thing, having a free and open internet, in principle, I tend to think that’s a good thing. That’s a condition for a better society. But also, I think these days, a lot of questions are asked. How good it is, or is this enough to bring about good changes? Or, sometimes, as many people have already mentioned, it causes really serious adverse effects. And in light of those things, I think we really have to think carefully how to proceed, in a way. Because I think it’s not really so simple as to say, only certain countries are problematic, and these countries are more pro-freedom, pro-unified internet. Because I think, upon closer inspection, even in those countries which are pro-democracy, pro-unified internet, there are serious problems and concerns. And maybe studying those things more closely, discussing about those things closely, might give us a better way to think about, maybe, a more comprehensive package. Maybe the unified internet is just one of, or part of the package, that would bring about good social changes. Maybe I spoke long enough. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Okay, thank you. So, it actually starts to get even more a little confusing, in terms of free and open. and is not always free and open and certainly not always good. And we’ve certainly heard that before. And I’m sort of starting to feel that it’s starting to cover a lot and not cover much at the same time. So it’s becoming actually a more and more interesting conversation. Next I have Tatiana Tropina from Leiden University who needs a microphone. And please, can you sort of help bring it in a little bit?

Tatiana Trapina:
It’s working now. Thank you very much, Avri. And I was listening to everybody and thinking about these 100 flavors of fragmentation, as Avri put it, or 50 shades of fragmentation. And I think the confusion comes from the fact that we place our belief, our faith in global connectivity on different layers of the internet. And I’m taking here purely technical, purely technocratic approach. For me, from this perspective, from the perspective of technical layer, nothing has challenged the global dominance of TCP IP, the system of unique identifiers. And if something has challenged it, for example, the incompatibility of IPv6 and IPv4 IP addresses, this has been fixed. The technical tools have been developed for the global connectivity to win. So for me, the glue that brings all these layers together and provides us, fulfills this promise of global connectivity is still there. But I do understand that different speakers put faith and definition of global connectivity somewhere else, below the technical layer. Then internet shutdowns become internet fragmentation, or above technical layer. Then various content regulations, restrictions, censorship. to also become internet fragmentation, because their promise of global connectivity is somewhere else. And this is where this debate gets confusing. To me, internet is not fragmented exactly because the glue that keeps us together, the technical layer, it’s still interoperable, it’s still global, remove censorship, you will have connectivity. But once this layer is gone, everything is gone. So yes, it’s not fragmented, but, but, the question is, is there no danger? There is a danger. And to me, the danger is that by trying to regulate, by trying to territorialize information flows, by trying to exercise control for various reasons, be it preservation of political system or legitimate concerns about protecting their citizens from various threats, governments start imposing restrictions that might intentionally or unintentionally impose regulation that might intentionally or unintentionally tackle the technical layer. And here I have to go away from my technical technocratic approach and say one thing. We like to think about technical layer like unique identifiers, TCP, IP, so it’s all connected, it glues it together, it’s working. But we have to think that this doesn’t exist on its own. It exists not because the government’s imposed it, not because regulation imposed it, it exists because the community, technical community, multi-stakeholder community put faith in it at some point by adoption of these protocols, by adoption of this system of unique identifiers. And it runs purely based on trust. And away from my technical technocratic approach, if regulation destroys either technical underpinnings or this trust, this is where internet is going to fragment. And I do believe that this is a danger here. And I would like to circle back to what Elena said about self-fulfilling prophecy. We talk about definitions a lot here. I do believe that at some point we start talking about solutions. And to me, one of the solutions would be to be very careful saying that Internet is fragmenting or fragmented because it’s some sort of perpetuating debate. What we have to do, we have to start thinking about basics and basic commitments. I know that it’s hard to fix government censoring the Internet. And sometimes we have to stop labeling it as fragmentations because sometimes it would be just purely human rights abuses. And it’s much fancier to say fragmentation, right? But we have to look into the core. And at the core would be global connectivity and trust. And if this session can start any debate about steps forward, I would say that it would be commitment by governments, by technical community, by anybody else to these basics. And once we preserve these basics, we can solve any other problem because the global connectivity will prevail. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. So we get to a point where we really are starting to overload the term and we’ve overloaded it with all of our frustrations and unhappinesses and everything else and get in trouble. Next I want to move to, and I’ve got a couple more before we’ll come back around, so many good people to talk to here, with Sheetal Kumar from Global Partners. And please pass the microphone. No, that way. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Hi, everyone. I’m sorry I’m late. But I’m really glad I got to catch Tatiana’s input there because I think it was very helpful. And the more I listen to these discussions, the more I feel like we are actually getting somewhere as long as we’re happy to navigate a choppy water. I think one of the challenges that we’re facing is that we’re talking about something we’re trying to preserve and also evolve. And so we’re trying to figure out perhaps, as you were saying, Tatiana, what we need to preserve. And I think that’s very helpful to identify and agree on, and how we evolve that, considering we need to preserve that. The issue is that whether through unintended or intended actions, and as you mentioned, a lot of those can come from regulation, there are challenges to preserving what we have. When it comes to the internet, those critical properties, the values and the principles of openness and connectivity, and indeed user control and autonomy, those are being impacted or could be impacted by regulation and decisions and the normalization of actions like shutdowns, for example. So that, to me, is the challenge. And then how specific we are, or how broad we are, I think that comes from, yes, perhaps identifying what we need to, and agreeing on what we need to preserve, identifying what the challenges are to that, and then ensuring that we can continue to evolve the internet according to that. So just quickly on where I think we’ve come to, I co-lead the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation, and we have developed this framework, which was, I think, probably referred to before, and there we have some recommendations under each of the elements of the framework, which are the technical layer, where we refer to the critical properties of the internet, but also user experience, which combines sort of the impacts of government regulation and also corporate actions on user experience, and develops recommendations based on those, and then governance as well. So the challenge of having duplicative mandates or bodies that are not inclusive and therefore don’t coordinate and communicate with each other. Now, if we, I believe, we could take any of those and if we did some of that, that would be helpful to ensure that we are both preserving and evolving the internet in a way that preserves its original vision, but it is also possible to do part of that and still go along the pathway. So I think what we’re trying to figure out here is what is the pathway and to have some sort of compass for that, and what I hope is that the Policy Network’s contribution, which builds on the contributions of many others who have worked on this topic, whether it’s the World Economic Forum paper or the work of the Internet Society, helps to form that compass and to both preserve and evolve what we have so that we can move along the right pathway. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. I just wanted to mention, we’ve got two more in this initial list. Then we have an online comment, and then I want to move into a more organic conversation, and I’ll mention to the people there, there are empty seats around the table. So if you’re going to want to say something, find yourself a seat, because it’s really easy to pass. Next, I have Raul Echeverria, and the microphone should start moving towards him from Asociación or something, I’m pronouncing it wrong, Latinoamericano de Internet. So Raul, please. I tried.

Raul Echeverria:
Excellent pronunciation. Okay. That’s a very interesting discussion. I think that I said yesterday in a meeting that we have to escape from the issue of definitions, because this is where we are stuck. But we are clear about how we want the Internet to behave and what are the things that we don’t want to happen on the Internet. One of the things we have is that people have the same experiences on the Internet. the internet around the world, and it is not happening. I have experienced that, as other colleague said before, let’s not put names on the countries. But I have been in countries where I have not had the same access to the same applications that I use often in my country or in most of the world. So there are others, as Tatiana pointed out, there is risk in many policies that create negative impacts in the way that the internet works. So I think that we can be two years discussing what is fragmentation and what is not fragmentation, and probably we will not get a consensus. So I will not spend time saying if the internet is fragmented or not. We have problems. That’s the point. And we know what the problems are. And OK, we can say, OK, don’t say that the internet is fragmented, because it’s like to create that idea that if it is already fragmented, so what’s the problem? But we have to be careful, because in fact, there are policies that have already been adopted in many countries that create a negative impact that have a huge risk on fragmentation. So for not saying that, we can create also the opposite spirit, the idea of saying, OK, people complain when we pass this law and nothing happens. Everybody now is saying that the internet is not fragmented, so what’s the problem? So let’s focus on what are the things that we don’t want to happen. We want the people to have the same experience and the the Internet, anywhere in the globe, to take advantage of all the powerful of the connectivity. We don’t want interference from governments in deciding by us what we can do or what we cannot do. And also, there are legitimate interest and right in the governments to take care about some things that are proportionally, that we know that there is a common understanding that in the world about child pornography, terrorism and other things, but also the measures that are taken to avoid the access to this kind of information should be proportional and reasonable, and not to use a big wig bomb to kill an ant, you know? There are problems. This is the point. And we have to focus on that instead of, say, discussing if Internet is fragmented or not.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. So we move from quibbling over the definitions and the multiple definitions towards, and I really like the notion of combining two things, sort of the pathway to solutions almost, the finding the actual problems and then working on solving them. The next person I have, and it’s the last one of this first round, as it were, is Paul Wilson from APNIC. Do you have a microphone? I can give you this one or that one’s coming.

Paul Wilson:
Hello, I’m Paul Wilson from APNIC. We’re a member of the technical community, one of the regional Internet address registries. I think when we’ve spoken about fragmentation at all these nuanced and high levels, I’m not sure that we want to get back down into the nitty-gritty of the Internet layer. I just do want to say that the purpose of what happens at the… that we have an internet layer in that technical sense, the underlying layer that supports everything else, that is unfragmented, that can continue to grow, it can continue to operate without fragmentation that can happen in various kinds. It’s continuous work that needs to be done. It, as I tried to say in yesterday’s panel, it’s something that shouldn’t be taken for granted, because it can be eroded. I think looking at fragmentation as a whole and even at an individual layer and individual case, I think we’re all learning that fragmentation is not just a condition of the internet, it’s a quality that varies, that comes and goes, it varies by layer, by context, by geography and so on. And so that goes at the internet layer as well, and what we’re continually trying to do is to make sure that we’re not over-fragmenting the internet layer as well and what we’re continually trying to do through policy making, through the IPv6 transition, through the management of the last suppliers of IPv4 is to preserve the integrity of the internet. So if anyone wants to talk about specific aspects of that, like IPv4 versus IPv6 for instance, then we can, but I feel like we’re past that. I wanted to make just one observation that is about the changing nature of the internet and how really these things do need to be tracked and observed and analysed as the internet grows and changes. There’s been a huge trend to a kind of fragmentation of the internet over the last decade towards CDNs, so content distribution networks which take copies of content and move those copies close to the consumers in order that they can be accessed quickly. That’s a type of fragmentation because it kind of breaks the model where the user is accessing a service which somehow exists somewhere on the internet and that service doesn’t anymore, even though it looks like one service, even on one IP address, it actually doesn’t exist in one place according to the classical model. it’s distributed, it’s fragmented, the original end-to-end model is kind of fragmented by that situation. So that’s a huge trend and a huge amount of the traffic on the internet has been, is these days delivered through CDNs. To the extent that the APNIC scientist Geoff Huston asked recently whether we were seeing the death of transit on the internet, that is the ability of the internet to negotiate a connection from any one point to any other point through transit networks. And it’s a good point because if you are no longer demanding transit, if you’re no longer demanding genuine end-to-end connectivity, then it may well fade. But then along came COVID and I think the fact that we had this incredible plethora of end-to-end, point-to-point video communications that became a necessity of everyday life sort of pointed out the necessity, the real importance of that end-to-end internet, the ability of any end point to effectively connect to any other end point. I was struck actually by the remote, the virtual participation by Javier before, from the other side of the world on this HD connection, absolutely beautiful, perfect. We have a point-to-point, end-to-end, unfragmented internet that’s allowing that kind of connectivity to take place. So I think that should be still pretty remarkable to all of us and something not to take for granted. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. You’re right. It is rather miraculous that we can do that and that we assume that it’s going to work and get kind of flustered when it doesn’t. Okay. We’re going to sort of move in the next. We’ve used about an hour. We’ve basically had a fair number of people give a fair number of good views that have sort of boiled the ocean a little bit for us. Adam’s going to read a comment. comment that was online, and then I’d like to basically, up to now it’s been just talk until you got said what you wanted to say. Now with a half hour left, sort of, if you’ve got brief points to make vis-a-vis what other people said, and Adam will carry around a microphone, and also I wanted to ask if there’s other participants here who weren’t the assigned speaking participants who but would like to speak and have something to say, please let us know so that we can get a microphone to you and you could speak. Either sit here or Adam will bring you a microphone. So please, Adam.

Dhruv Dhody:
Thank you. Yes, this is on. I do need the exercise, so please call for the mic. I’d love to rush over and give it to you in a second. Just, there is an online comment. It actually covers something that Tanya also mentioned. It’s from Dhruv Dhodi, and he says, while all of these can be called internet fragmentation, would you agree that they are not all equal and fragmentation at the technical layer that does not allow interoperability at all is a bigger threat than content moderation. Thus, is there a need for us all to be more nuanced when talking about internet fragmentation and sometimes, rather than sometimes clubbing them all together, which does not serve us well? So that was the comment, and I think Tanya touched on some of those issues. Who would like a microphone and get me moving? Yeah, keep putting her hand up, and then, yeah. Okay, all right.

Ponsley:
Okay, thank you. Ponsley speaking, Gambia NRI. I just want to go back to Elina. She raised something on, and all the other speakers have really talked more about it, that it’s not really a technical issue, which we know, and even when you try to put fragmentation, you try to package it down, you discover that most of what people are actually talking about is really. There are thousands of ways that internet is harming people, online. There are hundreds of ways that the human rights and digital rights have been abused, whether it’s short-term or whatever. My question on this political stuff, that’s likely what will break the Internet, what type of political situation are you seeing because people might interpret them differently. I’m not sure what the political scenario is. I think there are a lot of people who are using the Internet, later he’s overthrown, when there was elections, he started crying about using the Internet to make some noise to get him released. Some people will consider that in a way, in some parts, especially in Africa, that shutting down the Internet is a fragmentation. You are depriving some people, but actually, it’s not actually that. It’s a matter of different way that political characteristics, political points of view that affect a breakdown in fragmentation, cutting off a whole continent or a whole sector. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Start . We’re on the wrong path. And we’re moving away from something that maybe isn’t perfect, but we’re moving away from it. And so I think my question would be, or provocation would be, do we know, we all know we’re not taking it for granted, but do we know what, perhaps to Raoul’s point, like what we need to do? Do we agree on what the main issues are? And as I said, you know, some of us have been putting together recommendations, including from this IGF, from the multi-stakeholder policy network, for what can be done. Is that useful? Is that helpful to say that if we implemented those recommendations, things would get better? Do we have that common understanding? Because we are all clearly concerned about something.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to address anything directly? It seemed, and then I have the gentleman there, and then I have, no, he’s already got a microphone.

Julius Endel:
Yeah, I’ve got one. Thank you very much. I’m Julius Endel from the W Academy in Germany, and I’ve maybe, I forgot your name, sorry, the lady in the black and white, you. So, I don’t know who wants to answer it. So, how would you connect the discussion about fragmentation and AI? Because what I see is that all the costs are being, for running the internet and providing all the data on all the servers and into the cloud is socialized, and all the profits are privatized on a very few, a number of companies. And so, we are kind of doing all the work, and they are scrapping all of our data, and sucking in the profits, so isn’t that also a kind of fragmentation? So, how would you connect these two, or don’t you want to see this kind of connection? Okay, trying to keep track of the hands and

Moderator – Avri Doria:
the order in which I see them. I did have Jorge, but if somebody wanted to respond to

Elena Plexida:
what was just asked, yes. Yeah, please. I wanted to respond to what was asked previously, not right now. Okay. And thank you very much for the question. I was actually taking notes of what the other people were saying and trying to react to that. I was going to get to that point, anyway. So, but let me get it from the beginning. We can keep debating on how to define things, of course, and by the way, you know we do it because we were asked to do it. I’m not sure if I’m going to be able to be here, but I really like Tanya’s speech here. Let’s look at what we need to preserve, okay? The issues that Temea or Xavier online brought up are very, very important. We do have issues with data localization, islands of secluded content, shutdowns, what have you, all that. I guess I’ll try to put it in perspective in order to get to what we need to preserve. I think we need to preserve what we need to preserve, okay? So, if we are going to be able to isolate the Internet, isolate the Internet into two, three, four different Internets, then I think the problem becomes of a whole other magnitude. And the frustration that we’re talking about that we’ll all be feeling will be of a whole other level. And you said before we assume it just works. So, I think we need to preserve what we need to preserve, which is the Internet. And Temea also mentioned and other people mentioned while we were discussing legislation to address content issues that can have an adverse effect at the technical level. I agree, that happens. I also see and no one in the technical community will say that legislation is not needed. But I think it’s important to understand that the Internet is not a tool that can have an adverse effect on the technical level. It’s usually unintentional and when you discuss with legislators and you explain, they fix it. The trend, and that is what worries me and goes back to the question that was asked by the gentleman over there, is although so far it has been unintentional and unintentionally touching on the basics of the Internet, the fundamentals, the identifiers, there are huge challenges with IT. And so, from my perspective, we again have created an environment that I don’t want anyone but different behaviors that are not common at all and what is not common is the internet has actually invested enough money in time. And as I said, a decision that can have an adversarial effect on the technical level is much we have now an effort to apply sovereignty over something that is by definition global. An example I can give is sanctions over IPs as an action that goes into that direction. So yeah, therefore that is something that we need to avoid in order to preserve what we need to preserve. Going back to Tania. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay, I’m starting to build up a queue here. I’ve got you at the microphone there, then I’ve got Jorge, then I’ve got Raul, then I’ve got Michael, and then I’ve got Tatiana. So that’s the order I’ve managed to build. If I didn’t get it quite right, I apologize.

Robin Green:
It’s on. Thank you. My name is Robin Green. I work with Meta on internet fragmentation issues as well as a range of human rights issues tied to encryption and surveillance law enforcement access. I thought this is an absolutely fantastic discussion. Thank you for hosting it. One of the things that I’ve heard a few times over the course of this IGF and the many internet fragmentation conversations that we’ve had is this idea that content distribution networks are fragmenting the internet. And I want to push back on that a little bit because those networks are ultimately oftentimes necessary to actually connect people to services all over the world to make sure that those services are resilient, to make sure that people have access to fast internet service. And at the end of the day, when we’re talking about internet fragmentation, in my view… One of the things that we’re really focused on is what is the effect, right? So whether you’re talking about regulatory fragmentation of the Internet that has technical implications or a core technical fragmentation of the Internet like some folks have talked about The thing that we actually care about is what is the user experience is the user experiencing fragmentation? And if the goal of the Internet what which at least is the goal in my mind is for people to be able to exercise their Fundamental rights and whether those are economic rights expressive rights You know accessing information engaging in assembly and things like that At the end of the day if their user experience is becoming fragmented in a way that they can’t fulfill those goals Then to me that is internet fragmentation that needs to be addressed And so we can sort of have this larger umbrella of internet fragmentation While still looking at things from a technical perspective and then a user experience perspective But I think it would be a mistake to step away from the concept of internet fragmentation because something isn’t you know directly Mandating a technical fragmentation even where the user experience still winds up being fragmented And so that’s where I do see things as data localization requirements or other other kinds of restrictions on cross-border data flows Restrictions on encryption that would be implicating people globally users globally and then similarly implications on Content takedowns and geoblocking and other restrictions of free expression. Those are all elements of internet fragmentation They’re just you know, whether they’re technical or user experience oriented You know, there’s a difference there, but there’s still things that I think we all need to consider

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay. Now next I had Jorge and I also want to I was reminded that there was a pending question in the air So if any of you have it about the connection between AI which has been a favorite subject Oh, you’re gonna have one fantastic. Well, we’ll get there. I just want I was reminded I’m reminded that I had not made sure the… I want to respond directly to that question. Okay, so we’ll get there. Oh, you want to do it now? I can. Okay.

Tatiana Trapina:
So just, it doesn’t get lost because it was asked. I wrote it down. How would you connect the discussions on fragmentations and AI? And I would say I would not connect them. I’m sorry. So that’s my answer. Thank you. But I’m still in the queue for other issues.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Jorge, please.

Jorge Cancios:
Okay. After this commentary. Jorge Cancios with government. So on this question, so many things have been said. It’s difficult to add something, but I couldn’t resist. And I think here, as we are in the UN, in the IGF, we have to connect this also to the discussions we are having at the global level, what’s happening at the global level. And if you look at how the situation is evolving, just four years ago, we had a report from the high-level panel on digital cooperation, which was called The Age of Digital Interdependence. So really the focus was made or laid on what unites us on how dependent we are with each other and through the digital tissue that unites many things. And I just wanted to mention that because the situation today is a completely different one. I guess that even if such a panel would try to name its report, the same way it would be criticized as being completely out of the reality where we live with very fundamental geopolitical tensions. So I just wanted to share that and also recall that we are in the midst of this process towards a global digital compact where internet fragmentation is one of the topics to be considered. And going back to something that Paul said before and others, the internet interoperability at the technical level is not a given. It’s not really something that we should take for granted. It really relies, apart from this history of trust, of building this network, it relies on huge network effects, on incentives and benefits for everyone connecting to this unique network. But really the pressures are mounting at this geopolitical level. So there may come a time where those pressures, perhaps also joined by alternatives at a standards level, at other levels, become so important that this delicate fabric of trust, which holds the tissues together, built by millions of networks, begin to erode. So this is something that I think is really the fundamental level of internet fragmentation. And the same way that this is a fabric of millions of millions of networks, it is also in the hands of those millions of people taking decisions with their networks, with their companies, with their governments, who can take decisions going into the right direction or into the wrong directions, and can decide to invest into holding that tissue together or to really continue eroding that tissue into a direction that may end up with a fragmentation. So perhaps this decision or this recommendation of investing into the right direction, which is something in the hands of many of the people coming here, could be something for the policy network on internet fragmentation and for some good recommendations, useful recommendations coming out of this IGF and flowing into the GDC. So hope that was helpful after so many thoughtful inputs.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Starting to have a very long list here in a very short amount of time. I’ve got Raúl next.

Raul Echeverria:
Yes. The colleague that raised the point of political situation left the meeting, but I wanted to come back to that point, because of course we are accustomed in countries that are not democratic or with weak democracies, we are accustomed to see that it’s normal to impose restrictions to access to content. But so it’s something, by the way, something that we not realize in the… And we should not. But it’s not the only problem, and this is something that we expect, but now we are facing problems in democratic countries and strong democracies that are passing laws and developing public policies that are really affecting the user experiences. And sometimes it’s based on measures that try to protect intellectual property in the networks, or because of some taxation or other things. But sometimes, because for lack of awareness and the effect that the policies could have on the internet, those things are adopted. I’m sorry to say that my experience from policymakers is not only as successful as the colleague from ICANN say, that many times we explain to policymakers and we are not successful in changing their mind, because they have, as I said yesterday in another meeting, the incentives of policymakers are diverse. Sometimes they have political decisions to protect an industry or protect from disruption. So they have commitments. They have to move ahead with decisions, even knowing that they are creating a negative impact. As a friend of mine usually says, sometimes when policies don’t fit with reality, some policymakers who try to do is try to change the reality instead of changing the policies. I wanted to come back to the political situation, because it’s not only a problem. with dictatorships or authoritarian regimes is a problem. The risk is really big of having this fragmented experience that is what matter because nobody care about the rights. We care about what the people do on the internet. So this is what really matter.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Next, I’ve got Michael Rothschild.

Michael Rothschild:
Thank you. Hi, my name is Michael Rothschild. I’m from the Association of the Internet Industry in Germany. I’m working with the internet since 1983 and when we started, there were only fragments. The whole, there was no internet. It consists only of fragments in the various countries, fragments of services, fragments of networks, everything. And what we did at that time was building gateways. Of course, that may not be efficient and there is a risk of filtering, I admit, but I’m pretty much sure if fragmentation on the technical level goes on, someone will find a technical solution for that one and then we only have to deal with the political stuff. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. I think I come from that same generation where, for me, the internet’s constantly becoming. Tatiana.

Tatiana Trapina:
Unfortunately, the gentleman who asked the question about feasible scenario for fragmentation left, but I did, I wanted to say that we can think about technical scenario, like, I don’t know, some alternative route or alternative standards or alternative system of unique identifiers. I do not believe in this, strictly speaking, exactly because I think that the technical community has enough experience of connecting things by coming up with technical solutions so the connectivity wins. And plus, if this is imposed by the governments, it will. I don’t think that this is completely unrealistic. Maybe in the future if one region, like the European Union, decides to go with absolutely different technical standards, it might happen. Where I see the feasible scenario, and this is, I think, where it becomes very important, is when regulation which is imposed targets technical layer in a way that what Jorge called fabric of trust or the kind of regulation called fabric of trust is eroded. When something on the technical layer, be it root zone service, be it unique identifiers, IP addresses in certain regions have different frameworks for governance. When the multi-stakeholder governance does not cover it all or there are competing frameworks with what we have now. And here it brings me to the point what we want to preserve. I think we want to preserve essentially what makes the internet the internet. We want to preserve this uniqueness, this glue, technical identifiers, protocols, and ensure that any developments will make them still interoperable. But I think much more important in terms of feasibility of any, I reluctantly say this word, fragmentation scenario, we need to preserve this trust. We need the firm commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of governance. Not of engagement, not of discussion, but of governance, because this is how the technical layer has been governed. And this is what we have to constantly recommit ourselves to. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. As we come closer and closer to the end with seven minutes, please, Tomaki.

Tomoaki Watanabe:
Yes, thank you. So I wanted to answer two questions. One, the split internet discussion, how it relates to AI. I think I have slightly different take. And there are two relations that I can think of. So I would like to make a few comments on this. So I would like to make a few comments on this. So number one, AI, especially the current, like, large language model kind of AIs, they are built up on a massive training data set, which is enabled in a way by the unified Internet. So if we wanted to leave some benefits for the AI, we would have to have a more advanced capacity to be able to communicate and be as connected as they are right now. And also, more to the political domain. I think it’s good that some of the AIs can provide at least some advanced capacity to translate and overcome the challenges that we face in the world. So that’s my take on the relationship. The other question I wanted to address was if the technical layer fragmentation matters more than the content layer. I think the answer, basically, is yes, but not in a simple way. So the second question is that if suppose if all the world’s government had very strong granular and very speedy capability to regulate online communications of any kind, then the government doesn’t really care about shutting down the Internet connections, because such a measure is always a blunt assertion and you know that too much people are going to use that for providing help to communicate. internet is connected to each other. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay. I think I have four people left. The next one is Javier online, then I’ve got Paul, then Dushant, then Uta, and if I get all those in, we’re really doing great. That means you’re speaking briefly. So Javier, are you ready?

Javier Pallero:
Yes. I hope you can hear me. So one thing that I would like to add is more into the side of solutions, right? Just to try to move into something different. When it comes to what we have identified as the core fragmentation threats in terms of what happens with the protocols and identifiers, we have heard that the main threats on that front come from the governments, right? Governments that are feeling sometimes impotent in when it comes to try to control the internet in order to execute some of the public policies or priorities. So maybe isn’t then a reinvigoration of the multi-stakeholder model, more attention to that, maybe an active denunciation of those advancements by governments, extreme advancements by governments and also getting more information to users or to those who can exert pressure onto their own governments, a way of offering a solution. Maybe we should be doing that. Just thinking about, you know, like what’s the main threat to the more specific technical aspect of this and maybe, you know, with more participation and active denunciation of that advancement by governments, we can make a valuable contribution to that. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Paul, please.

Paul Wilson:
CDNs are useful and I didn’t mean to indicate they aren’t, but they don’t help people to access the internet. They help people to access specific services and content of specific CDNs and nothing more than that. If we’re talking about user experience, fragmentation to me as a user is a lack of inter-operation between similar services and to that end, I think it’s really important to make sure that we’re not just talking about and to that end, end, I want to have a single instant messaging account like I do an email account and still exchange messages with others who choose to use different services, whether they are WhatsApp or Signal or anything else, and I’d say the same about social media. Those services could interoperate and they don’t, they generally don’t, and that’s a choice of the company’s concern. I think that will continue and that will continue to me to represent a fragmentation of my experience on the internet. Service companies will continue to do that until they’re required to change that behaviour and I wouldn’t mind seeing that day come. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Please, Dušan.

Dušan:
I’ll sit here. Dušan, for the record, from Serbia. So I would like just to express one frustration that I have about fragmentation. So we call everything fragmentation. We call filtering fragmentation. We call, I remember and I agree with previous talks that when I was involved in internet, it was fragmented. Later on, we were talking about balkanisation, if you remember, to 2014, 15 and 16. IDN domain names, for example, are still fragmenting the internet. So technical layer is still the protected layer, as I would say, and it is connecting everything. But we have given governments to legislate in their part of the internet. So that part of the internet can be and should be fragmented. On the other side, we are fragmented with filtering, don’t call it fragmentation. We are blocking or something like that. Let’s talk about those particular topics, not call it fragmentation. So, we will have a high-level discussion on everything without substance. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Uta, you get the next to last word, because mine will be last.

Umai:
Oh, my. So, since we’ve been collecting indicators for fragmentation, sort of been writing up a research agenda about this, I’d like to put one more point next to this, and that is that we’ve been focusing very much on the technical layers. And while that, of course, is very important, I now find it important to mention that there, if we will, is this social layer underlying the internet as a network of networks. And that consists of network engineers who maintain these systems and have a huge, an informal community with informal values and forms of coordination that may be aging. And so, if we are looking at this in the future, then we may be wanting to look at this community as well and their capabilities of actually keeping things together.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. And thank you all for a great conversation. And I’m certainly not going to sum it up, because that would take forever. But this simple mind of mine walks away with fragmentation as a four-letter word with lots of nuance and lots of use. So, thank you very much. Thank you.